Equity, Inclusion and Conflict in Community Based Forest Management: A Case of Salghari Community Forest in Nepal

Abstract

The equity and inclusion issues are widely observed in Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) and Community Forestry (CF) is not an exception. Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) are portrayed as robust grassroots institutions for forest management and group governance. However, many contemporary researches have shown that CFUGs are still governed by some influential local elites who hardly practice equity and inclusion. In this context, objectives of this paper are: to explore how equity and inclusion issues lead CFUGs fall into internal conflicts; and to demonstrate how CFUGs are able to address such issues locally. The study was carried out in Salghari CFUG of Ratnechaur, Myagdi. Semi-structured interview and focused group discussion were key tools used for data collection. Livelihoods and Social Inclusion Framework and Equity Framework are used for data analysis. The findings of the research revealed that dalits and non-dalits of Salghari fall into internal conflict regarding the use of forest products. The conflict was then managed through amendments in CF provisions and change in CF leadership. This paper concludes that execution of equity and inclusion provisions in CF, secures access to assets for disadvantaged people from CBFM. However, this demands empowerment of these people and facilitating role of external agency.

Assessment of Portuguese Community Forestry using the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure and FAO Community-Based Forestry Framework

“…A literature review indicates that this type of conflict is common to CBFs regardless of the level of development of the country or community (e.g. Skutsch 2000; Bullock and Hanna 2007;FAO 2012a;Acharya and Upreti 2015;Milupi, Somers, and Ferguson 2017). In this sense, Portugal is no exception (Gomes 2017).…”

Impacts of Participatory Forest Management on Community Livelihood: Case study of Kereita forest Kenya

“…However, the education approach that was adopted by PFM was reported to have ignored local traditional knowledge systems. The existing literature about PFM has highlighted community ignorance, cultural rigidity, age, and incapacity of the community forest user groups as sources of conflict (Acharya & Upreti, 2015;Ann Zanetell & Knuth, 2004). Thenya (2014) has stated that the ignorance of most community forest association members has allowed governance of the CFAs to be captured by some influential local elites who hardly practice equality and inclusion.…”

“…High illiteracy levels in the community allow elites to take charge and collude with foresters and forest guards for personal gains. Acharya and Upreti (2015) identify governance, particularly participation and accountability, as a main issue leading to conflict in PFM. They specifically point out that most PFM initiatives are governed by influential local elites who seldom practice equality and inclusion.…”

“…First, broadening the participation and satisfaction of participants in decision making creates spaces for dialogue among conflicting groups offers (Nirmal et al, 2009). In addition conflicts can be addressed through the execution of equality and inclusion provisions in community forestry to secure access to assets for disadvantaged groups (Acharya & Upreti, 2015). Therefore, improved participation and better inclusion of the Kereita community in decision-making and benefit sharing could help reduce existing conflict.…”